text:
What are the legal issues for an Uber or Lyft type model for ride share on General Aviation aircraft in the United States?
Is it possible for an Uber or Lyft type service to operate that allows pilots with small aircraft to share a ride under current FAA regulations? I personally don't see how this could operate under 14 CFR 91, but maybe under what's allowed under 14 CFR 135.
I haven't been able to identify exactly what companies are trying, but I've been hearing that something like Uber for small planes is under development. This has caused great skepticism on my part that a company could accomplish this because of the regulatory requirements involved.

I doubt it, this would fall under air taxi regulations. Even if they tried to skirt the air taxi issue (like Uber does with cities that require licensed taxi drivers), you as a private pilot still can't accept money for a flight.

@RonBeyer my question doesn't say anything about private pilot

@Federico I meant current GA aircraft. I'm also skeptical of all the flying car stuff, that's another topic.

It doesn't really matter though, a CPL or ATPL do not have any more rights to carry passengers for hire in private aircraft than a PPL does. As you suspect this is more than just the qualifications of the pilots, but the regulations behind the equipment and the operation that matter. Uber and Lyft are private citizens using private vehicles, so I just extended your example "Uber or Lyft type model" to mean somebody without any other qualifications than a license, just like those drivers.

I disagree that a CPL/ATPL doesn't have more rights to carry a passenger for hire.

It's not enough for an answer, but Uber actually plans to do this, under part 135.  https://www.uber.com/elevate

https://en.wingly.io/

@ryan1618, I think we are playing with semantics. A CPL/ATPL can fly for compensation. They can also fly part 91. But the FAA puts some serious limitations on who they fly and the circumstances involved. There would not be enough flexibility in the current regs. The only way around it is if Uber owned the aircraft or leased them from the owner/pilots. Then, they could hire the pilots on a 1099 contract basis to fly “their own” planes. Uber, would be responsible for the aircraft. And the pilots would technically have one contract regardless of how many pax they carry.

Depending on how much detail you want, you can read the legal ruling in Flytenow Inc. vs FAA, which is the most recent and highest-level ruling on general aviation flightsharing. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.
Essentially, Flytenow wanted to let pilots find passengers willing to share the costs of a flight. They emphasized repeatedly that all decisions about if and when to fly, the route to take etc. would be made by the pilot, not the passengers. On the other side, the FAA said that by advertising for passengers, pilots would be holding out and that makes it a commercial operation. There were plenty of arguments on both sides and ultimately the courts decided that the FAA was acting consistently with previous decisions and regulations.
Flytenow made three legal arguments, all of which were judged invalid on appeal:

Advertising for passengers is protected free speech under the First Amendment
Private pilots' equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are infringed if they can't share costs
The FAA's ruling was vague

If you read the court's decision, you can see that they basically agreed with the FAA that protecting passengers justifies limiting what private pilots can do:

The FAA’s distinction between pilots offering expense-sharing services
  on line to a wide audience and those offering expense-sharing services
  to a limited group is justified: holding out to the public creates the
  risk that unsuspecting passengers, under the impression that the
  service and its pilots lawfully offer common carriage, will contract
  with pilots who in fact lack the experience and credentials of
  commercial pilots.

To put it even more simply, the basic difference between Uber and Flytenow is that the FAA believes that the general public can identify a bad driver, but not a bad pilot. That's the fundamental reason for having commercial licenses, part 135 etc.

...the FAA believes that the general public can identify a bad driver, but not a bad pilot.  Also, if a car breaks down or runs out of gas mid-trip due to the driver's negligence or incompetence, it's unlikely to get anyone killed.  (Unlikely, not impossible.)  If an airplane breaks down or runs out of gas mid-flight, it's a lot more serious.

@Steve-O The other difference seems to be that in the analogy with road vehicles taxi-cab drivers traditionally didn't need a license any different from the usual one. i.e. No CDL needed. i.e. Same license allowed you to ferry 4 passengers for a fare. Things in aircraft licensing were fundamentally different.

There are some companies operating under 135 that are trying to do this. For example Blade which flys out of NYC has been pretty popular. Basically the premise is that if you make the first reservation you need to book the whole helicopter (effectively chartering it). You may elect to allow them to sell the other seats and undercut your costs. However if they cant, you are on the hook for the whole charter cost. I also believe that the time is not officially posted until the chartering occurs.
There have been some attempts at the "ride share" thing for part 91 but the FAA has all but shut them down.

What the FAA will not allow, and what the court agreed with in its
  ruling, is advertising to the general public through a website like
  Flytenow or competitor AirPooler for such flights. Even posting to a
  bulletin board at a local airport is a gray area that could get you in
  hot water with the FAA for "holding out" to the public for commercial
  air service.

The issue the FAA seems to have with it at least on one hand is the posting of flight times. This apparently brushes up against the 121 regulations. Although as the article mentions this happens on airplane forums more often than people seem to think and its all clearly a grey area.


text:
What does it mean when a runway's safety area is not standard?
If an airport has a NOTAM that states that a runway safety area is not standard, what does that mean? Here's an example.
!CRW 12/043 CRW RWY 05/23 SAFETY AREA NOT STD 1512221324-1708151600

Is it something to do with the area on the ground that must be clear for takeoff and landing or some other criteria?

Here is a view of 05/23 at CRW:

Source: Google Maps
At either end of the runway there is a large drop off, here is another view:

Source: WVGazetteMail.com
(In March of 2015, the EMAS at the approach end of 05 was destroyed in a land slide as shown in the picture above, I cannot find a picture if it has been repaired, the NOTAM date indicates that it has not been.)
The FAA defines a Runway Safety Area (RSA):

What is a runway safety area (RSA)?
  An RSA is a defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.

And has standard dimensions:

The RSA is a rectangular box surrounding the runway and is based on the runway
  design code. The dimensions range from 120 feet to 500 feet in width and 240 feet to 1000 feet in length beyond the departure end of the runway. (see FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design)
  Generally, on airports that serve air carrier aircraft, the RSA extends 250 feet either side of the runway centerline and 1000 feet beyond each end of the runway.

So it doesn't look like there is a suitable area for an RSA given the size and expected traffic that the runway handles.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Does a multi-engine ATP with single-engine commercial privileges provide single-engine instrument privileges?
Does a multi-engine ATP with single-engine commercial privileges provide single-engine instrument privileges?
I received my ATP certificate recently, and the back of my FAA certificate reads as follows.
AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
  AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
  ...
COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
  AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
...

I left out the specific type ratings and limitations as noted by ....
The ATP supersedes an instrument rating, but the ATP is for the multi-engine category. Shouldn't the certificate reflect an instrument rating in the single-engine category?
The changes to my certificate were completed in IACRA and I have had part of a rating inadvertently removed before using the IACRA system.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ffb9d4e1606645e6c94dc65b95a6b7fc&mc=true&node=se14.2.61_1167&rgn=div8

Since the Instrument addon is by category, not class, aka Instrument Airplane, or Instrument Rotorcraft, the ATP Multi-Engine Airplane, counts for Instrument Airplane for the Commercial Single.

I agree with slookabill, I don't believe there is any distinction for instrument, you have it or you don't, it's not tied to a class of aircraft like single or multi.

@slookabill you should post your comment as an answer. It's short but it's the correct one.

Note also that you have an ATP Certificate, which gives you instrument privileges.  On this certificate, there is a sub-section which states that you have Commercial Privileges for ASEL but that is still part of your ATP Certificate.

Note this is my interpretation of part 61. Double check with the FSDO for a more legally biding answer.
Since the Instrument addon is by category, not class, aka Instrument Airplane, or Instrument Rotorcraft, the ATP Multi-Engine Airplane, counts for Instrument Airplane for the Commercial Single.

ATP certificates do NOT supersede an instrument rating.  Rather an instrument rating is a pre-requisite to obtain an ATPL.  See FAR 61.153 subpart d.1.
An instrument-airplane or instrument-rotorcraft helicopter rating is applicable to all classes or types of aircraft in that category.  I would think the ATPL would have an addendum to it stating INSTRUMENT-AIRPLANE.  I guess the FAA does not list it that way.

§61.167 (a) 1 ... an atp holder is entitled to the same privileges as someone who holds a commercial certificate and instrument rating, so that's probably why my ticket doesn't say instrument rated anymore. Your response doesn't directly address the question.

"ATP certificates do NOT supersede an instrument rating. Rather an instrument rating is a pre-requisite to obtain an ATP."  Or you could flip that and say "Because an instrument rating is a pre-requisite for ATP, the ATP certificate supersedes an instrument rating."  Because isn't replaced by something newer the very definition of supersede?!

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is yelling "clear prop" required by FAA regulations?
In general aviation, it's almost ubiquitous that pilots yell "clear" or "clear prop" before engaging the starter. Are there any regulatory requirements to take this action either in the form of 14 CFR or maybe in the Airman Certification Standards?

Like @mongo, I am not aware of a regulation and don’t recall seeing anything about it in the AIM. However, the Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B) says this about engine start:

Prior to engine start, the pilot must ensure that the ramp area
  surrounding the airplane is clear of persons, equipment, and other
  hazards from coming into contact with the airplane or the propeller.
  Also, an awareness of what is behind the airplane prior to engine
  start is standard practice. A propeller or other engine thrust can
  produce substantial velocities, result in damage to property, and
  injure those on the ground. The hazard of debris being blown into
  persons or property must be mitigated by the pilot. At all times
  before engine start, the anti-collision lights should be turned on.
  For night operations, the position (navigation) lights should also be
  on. Finally, just prior to starter engagement, the pilot should always
  call “CLEAR” out of the side window and wait for a response from
  anyone who may be nearby before engaging the starter.

Note the difference between "must" and "should".

@MichaelKjörling: There's an RFC for that! Note that the RFC is software-related,  not aviation related, and the FAA or other aviation regulatory bodies may have different definitions.

@dotancohen Yes, RFC 2119 is normatively cited by almost every RFC following it that even attempts to be normative. Of course, as you say, it's not really aviation-related. Still, I think the difference between the terms even in the quoted snippet is worth calling out.

Must, should, and shall is a mess. Don't use should or shall. One of the most ignored guidelines in the Federal government. http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/bigdoc/writeMust.cfm

"And wait" is important.  I've seen pilots turn the key almost simultaneously with yelling "clear."  Probably the same people who, when driving, turn on their blinker only after they start changing lanes.

@WayneConrad Exactly. And on Saturdays and Sundays, look out for stray dogs and wandering kids.

@SportsRacer Yeah, instead of 'should' or 'shall,' "ought to" or "may wish to" ought to be used.

To my knowledge it is not a regulatory requirement.  Assuring that there are no people or objects near the propellers is a regulatory matter.
Good practice is to call out, and then clear the area visually.  Leave enough time for the line boy to get out from under the plane who you didn't notice clearing the chocks. (grin)

Said otherwise: The requirement is to ensure there are no people or objects around, yelling "Clear" is the usual method to meet the requirement.

Eyes are your best tool. In larger turboprops I have flown, yelling clear is not done.  On a noisy ramp, few might hear it.  (Of course a turbo prop does not immediately start turning at idle RPM, so getting out of the way might be easier.)  Some aircraft are pressurized, and having an open window might be a little more difficult.  The best method is to have a ground observer to assist and indicate that the engine(s) are clear for starting.

There’s no regulation for yelling that out, save, I suppose that one could cite a flight crewmember under §91.13 guidelines for careless and reckless operation, if they attempted to start an aircraft engine with personnel nearby without giving proper warning to alert bystanders of the hazard.  It is operating the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner that would endanger the life or property of another.
Many aircrews do not yell that out during commercial operations, but, in general, these are occurring on sterile ramps with trained personnel nearby.  You are, in these situations, still responsible to be cognizant of the whereabouts of ground personnel and refrain from starting up or moving if they are near the aircraft.
That being said, if you are acting as PIC, you are directly responsible for, and the final authority on, the operation of that aircraft (§91.3).  Should someone be injured or killed by a propstrike from an aircraft you are acting as PIC of during startup or taxi, and it’s determined that the cause of the accident is a result of your gross negligence, you could potentially be charged with criminal vehicular homicide and definitely face the prospect of a civil tort for wrongful death.


text:
Do FAA endorsements have to use the current language word-for-word?
When pilots are going through the instruction process they receive many endorsements from flight instructors. It's common for a pilot to possess a logbook that has a prefilled endorsement in the back. It's also common for the logbook to use language that was current at the time it was produced, but for that language to have been superseded.
The FAA publishes and updates AC 61-65. At the current time, we're up to AC 61-65G.
My question is this. Are endorsements valid if they don't use the current language found in AC 61-65?


text:
Where does the term “throttle quadrant” come from?
The area of many flight decks that contains throttles or thrust levers is often referred to as the “throttle quadrant” or “thrust lever quadrant” even if it’s not one of four parts of the panels.
Where does the term come from?

I guess I figured it was because the levers move through approximately 90 degrees.

Just a guess, but maybe some early designs used a quadrant gear to drive the cables. That's how a ship's wheel works. The rudder cables are attached to a quadrant driven by the wheel. A ship's wheel itself is also sometimes called a quadrant for a different reason. Aviation borrows nautical terms

The term quadrant refers to the panel containing the levers and is derived the circular arc in which the throttles are placed:

throttle quadrant
The recess in which the throttle is located and moves. ... It derives its name from the circular arc in which the throttle is placed.

Looks like the term entered aviation from the rudder controls in a ship:

quadrant

A frame fixed to the head of a ship's rudder, to which the steering mechanism is attached.
3.1 A panel with slots through which a lever is moved to orient or otherwise control a mechanism.

Here's a rudder quadrant

Rudder quadrant; image from titanic-model.com

A quadrant is a generic name for part of a circle with an angle of 90°. From Wikipedia:

A sector with the central angle of 180° is called a half-disk and is bounded by a diameter and a semicircle. Sectors with other central angles are sometimes given special names, these include quadrants (90°), sextants (60°) and octants (45°), which come from the sector being one 4th or 6th or 8th part of a full circle, respectively.

The throttle quadrant is the circular segment that houses the thrust levers. The B737 thrust lever has a stroke of roughly 90°.
Image source
Other quadrants found in aircraft are for instance the cable quadrants for the interconnect cables between flight controls and control surfaces.
Image source


text:
Why has the Bombardier CSeries been delayed in starting service with Delta Air Lines?
Delta Air Lines placed a large order for the Bombardier CSeries. I don't know the original projected date for the start of CSeries flying, but I think it already passed.
When is DAL planning to start CSeries flying? What is the reason for the delay? Have any problems with the aircraft itself caused the delay?

This delta news brief from February of this year alludes to the fact they are waiting for the Alabama production facility to be completed, presumably where they will build the aircraft.

Delta still intends to take as many deliveries as possible from the
  new Airbus/Bombardier facility in Mobile, Alabama, as soon as that
  facility is up and running. However, as the ITC notes, the airline has
  contractual commitments to begin taking deliveries later this year and
  the ITC decision clears the way for Delta to accept deliveries in
  Canada as well....
....and while pleased that imports from Canada can now be part of the
  near-term solution, Delta looks forward to taking U.S. manufactured
  aircraft from Mobile when that facility opens.

This article notes that during an earnings call they mention early 2019 as the projected start of operations for the aircraft. The article also notes they were slated to take 15 aircraft in 2018 but "program delays" prevented this. The article does not detail what those delays were (presumably the lack of the Mobile facility contributed along with the tariff issues).

I believe it's because the tariff issue has not been resolved.
https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/u-s-upholds-nearly-300-per-cent-tariffs-on-bombardiers-cseries

This seems like more of a comment than an answer. If you believe it to be an answer, could you reference the "tariff issue" you are talking about?

The International Trade Commission rejected the 300% tariff in early 2018.

@MikeCowan Delta isn't going to push it with the current political climate. This article states "The lone U.S. customer, Delta Air Lines Inc., was originally expected to receive the first of its firm order for 75 CS100 planes in the spring, but now plans to wait until the aircraft are assembled in the United States." Of course, this may not be the whole story.

Also note.  The airplane is going to be renamed the Airbus A2xx soon.  It's now an Airbus program and is being sealed off from the rest of BA commercial aircraft.  C Series gone, RJ production slowly dying, and they are looking for a buyer for the Q400 program.  Bombardier's long term strategic plan is to get out of the commercial aircraft business and go back to bizjets only.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What is the purpose and history of the FAA's tracking system for handbooks and manuals?
Handbooks and manuals published by the Federal Aviation Administration usually have a designation attached to them. For example, the current Instrument Flying Handbook is designated FAA-H-8083-15B at the time I am writing this.
One apparent purpose of this system is to keep track of what particular version of is current.
What is this designator's proper name? What is the history of this scheme and can anyone shed light on any other purposes it may have?

You should check out FAA-STD-069, which is has the FAA standard practices on preparation of handbooks.

@aeroalias Wait - there's a handbook on handbooks?

One reason for traceability is the legal liability of compliance. Pilots and aircraft manufactures are only required to observe the rules and regulations at the time of manufacture or date of flight. This has implications of hundreds of $millions of dollars particularly when it comes to accidents.

I must have too much time on my hands, because I actually looked this up in the handbook on handbooks that aeroalias referenced.

5.1.2.3 Document identifiers
The identifier for handbooks shall be placed in the upper right corner
  of the first page. The identifier as assigned by ATO-W Enterprise CM
  shall include the letters “FAA” followed by a hyphen, then any
  combination of numbers, letters, or dashes. It shall not include any
  other symbols.
5.1.2.7 Handbook numbering.
FAA handbooks are assigned traceability numbers by Enterprise
  Configuration Management organization following endorsement by the
  Systems Engineering organization. This alphanumeric designator will
  utilize the following format: FAA- HDBK-(XXX), where "XXX" equals a
  three digit number. The handbook number is placed in the uppermost
  right corner of the cover page.

Section 5.1.2.5.1 Superseding revisions doesn’t appear to be followed in any of the FAA handbooks I have.


text:
What changes were made to the 777 as a result of British Airways 38?
Regarding the crash of British Airways Flight 38, a 777 inbound to Heathrow, the AAIB final report, section 2.8 states that frozen fuel deprived the engines of fuel pressure resulting in the crash.
What changes were made to the 777 as a result of this event? Additionally, a bonus question... are there any other cases of this issue causing problems on the 777?

I'm mainly wanting to know what changes were made to aircraft that were flying at the time. ADs, etc.

I want to say that this crash or a very similar one changed the way that they make filters for the fuel trucks.

The aircraft accident was caused by ice accumulating in the Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger (FOHE) of the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines which subsequently blocked fuel flow to the engines. The official accident investigation concluded:

The investigation identified the following probable causal factors that led to the fuel flow restrictions:

Accreted ice from within the fuel system released, causing a restriction to the engine fuel flow at the face of the FOHE, on both of the engines.
Ice had formed within the fuel system, from water that occurred naturally in the fuel, whilst the aircraft operated with low fuel flows over a long period and the localised fuel temperatures were in an area described as the ‘sticky range’.
The FOHE, although compliant with the applicable certification requirements, was shown to be susceptible to restriction when presented with soft ice in a high concentration, with a fuel temperature that is below -10°C and a fuel flow above flight idle.
Certification requirements, with which the aircraft and engine fuel systems had to comply, did not take account of this phenomenon as the risk was unrecognised at that time.

(official accident report summary)

(image source: official accident report)
The FAA issued an amendment to an older Airworthiness Directive (AD) in March 2009:

Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes Equipped With
  Rolls-Royce Model RB211-TRENT 800 Series Engines
[...]
SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to
  certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising
  the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include in-flight procedures for pilots to follow in certain cold
  weather conditions and requires fuel circulation procedures on the ground when certain conditions
  exist. This new AD retains the fuel circulation procedures. This new AD also revises the AFM
  procedures required by the existing AD. This AD results from a report of a single-engine rollback as
  a result of ice blocking the fuel oil heat exchanger. We are issuing this AD to prevent ice from
  accumulating in the main tank fuel feed system, which, when released, could result in a restriction in
  the engine fuel system. Such a restriction could result in failure to achieve a commanded thrust, and
  consequent forced landing of the airplane.

(AD 2009-05-11)
The NTSB then requested a redesign of the FOHE from Rolls-Royce:

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on 11 March released urgent safety recommendations for the redesign by Rolls-Royce of the fuel-oil heat exchanger on Trent 800 engines powering Boeing 777s.
NTSB says Rolls-Royce is already working on a redesign that could be available in twelve months, but still felt compelled outline the need for the heat exchanger overhaul.

(flightglobal.com)
In Europe, EASA required the new FOHE to be installed since January 2011 at the latest:

Reason:
This Airworthiness Directive has been raised following an incident involving dual
  loss of engine response in the final stages of approach leading to touchdown
  short of the runway. The phenomenon involved in the loss of engine response
  has also been seen in flight affecting just one engine.
Post incident analysis and investigation has established that, under certain
  ambient conditions, ice can accumulate on the walls of the fuel pipes within the
  aircraft fuel system, which can then be released downstream when fuel flow
  demand is increased. This released ice can then collect on the FOHE front face
  and limit fuel flow through the FOHE. This type of icing event was previously
  unknown and creates ice concentrations in the fuel system beyond those
  specified in the certification requirements.
To mitigate the risk of dual engine FOHE blockage within the Trent 800 engine
  powered Boeing 777 fleet, which constitutes a potential unsafe condition, this
  Airworthiness Directive instructs replacement of the FOHE with a modified
  standard incorporating enhanced anti-icing and de-icing performance.
Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s):
Within 6 000 flight hours from 10 July 2009 or before 01 January 2011,
  whichever occurs first:
Replace the FOHE with an FOHE modified in accordance with RollsRoyce Alert Service Bulletin RB211-79-AG257, dated 24 June 2009
  (published 10 July 2009).

(EASA AD 2009-0142)
Regarding your bonus question: Yes, there was another incident (Delta Air Lines Flight 18, 26 November 2008) where ice accumulation in the FOHE resulted in an engine rollback (luckily only one engine this time):

Since we issued AD 2008-19-04, we received a report of a single-engine rollback as a result of
  ice blocking the fuel oil heat exchanger (FOHE) on a Model 777 airplane equipped with Rolls-Royce
  Model RB211-TRENT 800 series engines. The data confirm that ice accumulates in the fuel feed
  system and releases after a high thrust command, creating blockage at the FOHE and resulting in the
  inability of the engine to achieve the commanded thrust. Examination of the data from the rollback
  shows that the second of two maximum thrust step climbs was performed approximately 40 minutes
  prior to the thrust rollback. Ice was released within the fuel system during the step climbs and formed
  a restriction at the FOHE of the affected engine, as evidenced by an increase in engine oil
  temperature.

(AD 2009-05-11)


text:
Which was the last Boeing crash that didn't send its black boxes back to the US?
I couldn't find an answer online, so I am asking the community.

The real question is how frequent it is for a Boeing crash not to send the black boxes back to the USA, and a reply to title's question would be a good basis for the real answer.
My feeling was the black boxes were sent back to the US for analysis (maybe I watched too match Mayday).
Article(s) mention that sending the data recorders to the USA would be to allow a party with a vested interest to be a judge in its own case, but this, I imagine, could be the case in older incidents too - but my feeling that wants the Boeing black boxes to be sent back to US invalidates the article's argument.

Exactly @ymb1, the manufacturer is the default choice, so I am surprised the black boxes from the recent crash of the B737 MAX wasn't sent to the states...

MH370 comes to mind. Of course the black boxes of that one were never found (in fact the entire aircraft is missing).

Please refer to the following website for more details
https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/ethiopian-airlines-737-max-black-box-sent-to-paris-why.html
The International Civil Aviation Organization, which sets the standards for aircraft accident investigations, says that the country where an incident occurs is in charge of the investigation
If the concerned country has the tool to analyse the black boxes, they are analyzed locally and if necessary with the help of the aircraft manufacturer, therefore
When the concerned country has the knowledge to do the analysis there is no point to send the boxes to the manufacturer country.  What is particular to the Ethiopian case is that even though not having the tools to do the Analysis they preferred the help of a third party, rather than sending the boxes to the US, but this is beyond the scope of the question.
So the Ethiopian government asked Germany to analyze the black boxes, but according to CBS, the Germans also lacked the necessary software, consequently Ethiopia asked the help of France, thus the boxes have been sent to the Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis, the BEA.


text:
Safety regulations for take off spectators around airports?
In a Greek island, an A320 blasted a child ten meters away, during take off. It was with his family outside the airport (Greek src).
I wonder what are the regulations, if any, for how much people are allowed to approach the airport (I intended to say runway, but some people might not be able to identify it).
I don't expect from a common person to be aware of the dangers that occur at these situations. The airport should protect them, that's why I ask, if there are any regulations that define the min. allowed distance of people outside the airport?
If yes, it would make sense for the airport to have it's fence at that distant, not any closer.

Related: Is there a minimum distance between a runway and a public road?

@fooot thank you for the link! Jet engines can be very dangerous. In the old airport of Greece, when testing an engine of a 742 at takeoff power, a police car at 300-400 was caught in the wave, the car overturned many times, and the officers were killed. Or, the other luggage ground stuff, who walked in 5m distance in front of an idle engine of a triple seven, and got sucked!

Most airports are intentionally built away from other areas because of practical problems like noise and potential structures getting in the way. There's also the rather significant requirements to build a runway itself (long, relatively flat and level). But there doesn't seem to be any hard minimum safety distances. It seems to be left up to the airport itself to determine safe distances.
One of the best examples I can think of (with limited clearance around the airport) is Princess Juliana International Airport in St. Maarten. The runway approach passes directly over Maho Beach, a road, and then you have a 7000ft runway (the largest flat spot the island can muster). In the picture below, the fence marks the end of the airport.

It produces some spectacular videos of planes passing less than 100ft over the beach and people watching on the beach are impacted by the blast of jets, who must stop at the end and bring their engines up to speed before starting their roll.
The incident mentioned happened at Skiathos Airport, which is also an island airport with limited land for a runway (shorter than St. Maarten at 5300ft).
So it seems to be that if you have a long, flat, and relatively level spot to build a runway, there's nothing to prevent you from building an airport there.

The spectacular videos look like 10–20 ft, but that's mostly because it is actually pretty hard to judge from them. Normal approach is 50 ft over the threshold and there is still a couple hundred feet between the fence and the threshold marking, so it would be at least 50 ft even if the plane is coming a bit too low.

Most of the airliners landing on Rwy 10 at TNCM are 50-60 ft AGL passing over the threshold.  It’s also not all fun and games as a Dutch tourist recently was killed out there riding the fence like that.

@JanHudec Corrected the height. Thanks

So  David Richerby, Dan Hulme, BowlOfRed, Ralph J, jklingler, Machavity:  how does that answer the question any more than my deleted reply?

@CrossRoads Make a meta post please. Will be happy to reply there

There was a death at Princess Juliana International Airport a couple years ago when a tourist was blown over by jet blast.

@ZachLipton that tourist ignored all safety warnings and was knocked over, fell, and tripped over a concrete barrier onto a concrete/rock slab some way down. It wasn't the original jet blast that killed the tourist. The tourist was also in a zone clearly marked as no-go during operations.

From the article:

A serious accident occurred at noon in Skiathos, as a 12-year-old child was injured by the airborne aircraft taking off.
The child, together with their parents, watched from a short distance the take-off of a TUI Airbus 320 to London.
However, the power of the gases from the engines of the airplane expelled the 12-year-old at a distance of more than 10 meters.
The unfortunate child was initially transferred to the health center of Skiathos and then to the Achilopouleio hospital of Volos.
According to the doctors, the 12-year-old is at no risk.

It does seem like there ought to be at least a sign near the end(s) of the runway.  There are plenty of videos of the airport at St Martin where folks get sandblasted by the blast of engines of the airliners.  I believe they have a warning sign. Even a lowly Cessna/Piper/etc with 180HP engine can kick up quite a wind.
There are no regulations on the distance from the end of runway/runoff areas to nearby roadways.

So, is there any regulation that states the distance that this sign should be placed?

This doesn't answer the question at all. It's mostly just a translation of the article linked in the question, which should be edited into the question, not posted as an answer.


text:
Which version of the FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook is current?
I'm looking for the current release of the FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook. The FAA website for the IPH shows FAA-H-8083-16, but other FAA documentation I've found references FAA-H-8261-1A. I've looked for places to buy the Instrument Procedures Handbook such as Amazon and found that they're offering FAA-H-8261-1A.
Which one is current?
For future reference, how do I found the most recent release of an FAA publication?

From the preface to FAA-H-8083-16, dated 2014: "This handbook supersedes FAA-H-8261-1A, Instrument Procedures Handbook, dated 2007". So as of this writing, the former appears current.

always on the website. 16 is current, as of last year, but note there are already addenda and errata for the IFH, the last from Apr 2015. Also the IPH was updated last year.

8083-16 ,dated 2014, is current version, superseded 8261-1A. It is stated in Summary of Change.
For future reference, the FAA page you linked in the question is best resource available.


text:
What are the different wing planforms? What are each's advantages? Where are they commonly used?
I remember reading that there are four common wing planforms:

Rectangular
Eliptical
Tapered
Sweptback

I'm sure there are more. What are the different types of planform out there?
Each must have its own advantages and disadvantages. What are those?
What's a good example of each?

you might want to split these in different questions.

I'd think what are they and what are their advantages/disadvantages is a great question pairing, @Federico. I suppose, the where used part could be snipped out...

The wing planform (which is the shape and layout of wing) for each aircraft is mainly based on the aerodynamic requirements. There are other considerations like stealth, controllability etc. The basic terminology in the wing geometry is given in the figure below.

Source: grc.nasa.gov
Most of the wing platforms in use (or have been used) fall under one of these categories.
Elliptical Aerodynamically, the elliptical planform is the most efficient as elliptical spanwise lift distribution has the lowest possible induced drag (as given by thin airfoil theory). However, the most important disadvantage of the elliptical wing is that its manufacturability is poor.
Perhaps the most famous aircraft with elliptical planform is the Supermarine Spitfire, used in Battle of Britan.

"Spitfire mark19 ps853 planform arp" by Adrian Pingstone (Arpingstone) - Own work. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.
Interestingly, the elliptical wing was not decided to minimize induced drag, but to house the retractable landing gear along with guns and ammunition inside a wing that had to be thin. As per designer Beverly Shenstone,

The ellipse was simply the shape that allowed us the thinnest possible wing with room inside to carry the necessary structure and the things we wanted to cram in. And it looked nice.

Some aircraft like the Seversky P-35 had a semi elliptical wing, with only the leading or trailing edge elliptical.

"Seversky SEV-DS" by Unknown - http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8392339249/in/set-72157631292290354. Licensed under CC0 via Commons.
Rectangular Arguably the simplest wing planform from a manufacturing point of view, the rectangular wing is a straight, untapered wing. A good example would be the light general aircraft like Piper PA 38.

"Piper pa-38-112 g-bppf arp". Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.
The main disadvantage of this wing is that it is aerodynamically inefficient.
Tapered Wing This is a modification of the rectangular wing where the chord is varied across the span to approximate the elliptical lift distribution. While not as efficient as the elliptical lift distribution, it offers a compromise between manufacturability and efficiency.
A very good example of aircraft using this type of wing is the North American P-51 Mustang, which became the premier USAAF escort fighter against the Luftwaffe.

"P51-d mustang 472216 arp". Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.
Constant Chord with Tapered Outer This is midway between the rectangular and the tapered wing, with the inner part having constant chord and the outer part having a taper.
A very good example of this type of wing is the English Electric Canberra.

Source:
Almost all of the wings seen so far are used in subsonic aircraft due to the large drag caused by them in the transonic regime. Most of the wings used in supersonic aircraft fall under one of the following categories.
Delta The delta is a very low aspect ratio wing used in supersonic aircraft, most notably in the European designs. The main advantages of the delta wing is that is efficient in all the flight regimes (subsonic, transonic and supersonic). Also, the wing offers a large wing area for the shape, reducing wing loading and improving maneuverability.
The delta wing design is also very strong structurally, offering large volume for internal fuel. The delta wings are also quite simple to build and maintain.
The main disadvantages are that they have high induced drag due to low aspect ratio and also that they should have high angle of attack at low speeds (takeoff and landing), mainly due to fact that at these speeds, lift is generated by vortices. To compensate for this, they have high stall angles.
A very good example for this wing is the Dassault Mirage 2000, which is an example of tailless delta i.e. without horizontal stabilizers.

Source: www.aircraftrecognition.co.uk
A variant of the delta wing used in some aircraft is the one with horizontal stabilizer (tailed delta), the most famous of them being the Russian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21.

Source: hdwallpapers.cat
Another variant is the one used by the Eurofighter Typhoon, the so called cropped delta, where the tips of the delta are 'cut off' to reduce drag at high angles of attack.

"Eurofighter 9803 2" by Kogo - Own work. Licensed under GFDL via Commons.
Yet another variant of the delta wing (this planform is very popular in combat aircraft), is the so called double delta, where the leading edge angle is not constant, but has two different values. One good example of this is the Light Combat Aircraft 'Tejas' under development in India.

"LCA Tejas" by Rinju9 - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.
Trapezoidal The trapezoidal wing is a high performance configuration such that the leading edge sweeps back and the trailing edge sweeps forward. This is mostly found in combat aircraft from the US.
This wing configuration offers efficient supersonic flight and has very good stealth characteristics. However, the wing loading is quite high, resulting in reduced maneuverability, especially instantaneous turn rate.
This wing configuration is used most notably in the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

"F 22 raptor bomb bay display 2014 Reno Air Races photo D Ramey Logan" by WPPilot - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Commons.
Ogive The Ogive is a type of supersonic wing used in high speed aircraft. This is a complex mathematical shape derived for minimizing drag, especially at supersonic speeds. They offer excellent supersonic performance, with minimal drag. However, they are extremely complex and manufacturing is difficult while their subsonic performance is poor in comparison.
The most important aircraft using this wing is the Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde, one of the two supersonic commercial aircraft.

Source: www.wired.com
The wing planforms can also be classified on their sweep and variability.
Swept Back wings The leading edges of these wings are swept back. This is done order to reduce drag in transonic speeds, which is determined by the velocity normal to the wing.
This planform is used in almost all high speed commercial airliners. A good example would be the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

"Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner N787FT KBFI" by redlegsfan21 - Flickr: N787FT. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Commons.
Swept Forward Wings One disadvantage of the swept back wings is that due to the flow characteristics, the ailerons stall before the flaps (i.e. outboard wings stall first), which can lead to controllability issues. In order to overcome this, swept forward wings were used  in a few (experimental) aircraft.
The man problem with swept forward wing is that it produces wing twisting as it bends under load, resulting in greater stress on the wing root than for a similar straight or swept back wing. One of the few aircraft to use this wing is the Sukoi Su-47 Berkut.

Source: tom-clancys-hawx.wikia.com
Variable Sweep Wings For high speeds (transonic and supersonic), the swept wing is most suitable while for low speed (subsonic) flight, unswept wings are better. Varaible sweep wings were used to optimize the wing planform over a wide range of speeds. The main problem with this type of wing is the mechanical complexity.
The first aircraft to enter service with the variable sweep wing was the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvak.

"F-111A Wing Sweep Sequence" by Unknown. - http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_media.asp?fsID=2321&page=3. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikipedia.
Though most of the aircraft have used these planform, a number of other wing shapes have also been tried.
For example, the Handley Page Victor used a Crescent shaped wing.

Source:
F-16 XL used a cranked-arrow double delta wing.

Source: www.nasa.gov
One point to note is that most of the aircraft in operation or development use wing planforms which are a combination of the above rather than any one of them.

This is a great answer, but it really hits a peeve of mine all over the place: the plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft", not "aircrafts". :)

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks :)

"Interestingly, the elliptical wing was not decided to minimize induced drag" - I disagree. See the longer quote at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire#Elliptical_wing_design. The Spitfire designer RJ Mitchell (and others) had been aware of the superior aerodynamics of elliptical wings since the 1920s, but the mechanical design problems took a little longer to solve. Mitchell may also have favoured a "theoretically best" aerodynamic design after some disappointing experiences with wind tunnel tests not reading across to full size aircraft performance, during the 1930s

I'm not saying that it (aerodynamics) didn't play a part; rather the practical considerations outweighed them. See The Spitfire Wing Planform: A suggestion. Reportedly Mitchell said, "! don’t give a b..... whether it’s elliptical or not, so long as it covers the guns!". I just tend to think of it as an example that shows the number of variables that go into the design of an aircraft and its consequences, whether intended or not.

Saving this for if I ever have to Decide what a MacGuffin Airplane looks like in a tabletop RPG :>

Would be good to see a sport glider added to this.

Here is a pictorial list of planforms.  The different planforms are designed to produce the highest lift:drag ratio at various speeds while still being producible.  Swept and delta wings are for speeds approaching and exceeding the speed of sound.  Elliptical, tapered, and rectangular are for subsonic speeds.  At these speeds, the major issue is induced drag.  The rectangular wing is the easiest to build.  The elliptical wing has the lowest induced drag.  Tapered is a compromise between the two.  There are other factors such as stall behavior that influence choice of planform.  Too much taper and a stall at the tips can result in a spin.  The link here has more.


text:
Would someone please describe or explain airship or zeppelin avionics packages

I'm hoping to learn more about this avionics pictue, with a plan to redesign the user interface. Would someone be willing to share other pictures, along with descriptions of each data point?

Some reference?

I've seen these on games/simulations (Flightgear has a Zeppelin NT available and its panels look similar to that.)  The Pitch figures (LH RH and aft) are for the three propellors, though I can't say whether they are blade pitch or the angle of the nacelles themselves.  The "Ballonet" bits are for adjusting the pitch/balance by pumping air into front or rear airbags, as well as controlling the overall gas pressure.  The % may be a subjective "fill level".


text:
Exactly what kind of radios are prohibited for passengers inside an aircraft?
I know that passengers are asked to put their cell phones on flight mode. But some carriers allow use of WLAN on-board. So, what radios should passengers refrain from using?
Also, if a person uses a GPS receiver on his/her mobile phone (on flight mode), would it interfere with the aircraft communication system?

Regarding GPS, it's a receiver

FAA now allows nearly everything but voice communication with cell phones, based on 220-page report which analyzed PED interferences and concluded that there are none.

I've never understood this.  A good buddy of mine is an avionics trainer for my local airline.  He states, and pilots state, that they can often hear the cell negotiation from phones over the intercomm audio.  I cannot grasp why official reports are concluding that there is no problem.

I know GPS devices are receivers, but when I asked a pilot, he said "of course GPS interferes with aircraft communication, and you shouldn't use it.". Since they only receive data, I don't think there should be any problem if anybody uses it on-board.

@PriyankGupta are you sure he didn't confuse GPS with GSM or something?

@MikeFoxtrot : Well, I clearly remember I said "GPS", but I am not sure what did he hear

@mins That's general electronic devices. Radios have other rules; for instance, an amateur radio may not be operated on an aircraft without permission from the PIC.

It seems people often mix up GPS and GSM. Crime series on TV often claim that they try to locate a phone / it's owner via GPS, though they clearly show they're using GSM station info. They even often don't know GPS is receiving only, e.g. because it's faster with Internet (GSM) on their phone. I don't know if all pilots know GPS is a pure receiver. However, I like to track my flights and see where we are and what's that structure below us.

Pure GPS is receive-only, however most mobile communication devices that have it use a combination of various location-sensing techniques as the device's "location service" (cell towers, known WiFi hotspots) which are faster but less precise, and it's sometimes impossible to specify that you only want to use the pure GPS component.

@simon probably because the intercom is not only not shielded the same way the avionics are, but the intercom wiring runs into the cabin, unlike avionics.

@PriyankGupta: The basic way to receive a GPS signal (or any other radio signal) is to extract the modulation from the modulated-carrier. This is usually done by an intermediate heterodyne operation which adds a RF signal to the signal received. This operation itself creates a RF signal of low power. This signal, or any of its by-products can create interferences to (badly designed) receivers. This is why we need to see all receivers as potential low power emitters until determined they are harmful.

There is actually a simple answer, but it probably isn't exactly what you are looking for:  Refer all questions about what is allowed to your specific airline.
Each airline has to come up with their own list of allowable electronic devices, and submit that list to the FAA with appropriate documentation in order to gain approval to allow passengers to use them during flight.
Some airlines allow almost everything as long as it can be put into a non transmitting mode (airplane mode), while some still require ALL electronic devices to be completely powered down at all points during the flight.
Because of this, every airline is a little different and you are required to follow their rules while on their flights.
The GPS receiver would not cause problems, but this doesn't mean that you are necessarily allowed to use it, and there are other things in your phone that could cause a problem though.
In general, no electronic device that has a transmit function may be used because of possible interference though, unless specifically approved.

Actually I wanted more technical answer. Also, for example, multiple airlines are ordering A320s from Airbus. Now what sense would it make to have different rules for the same A320s that are being sourced from the same company, i.e, Airbus.
Moreover, I think Airbus/Boeing should decide what gadgets should be allowed on-board, since they know the best about their aircrafts.
If you would, please tell me what other things in a phone can cause problems.

While that would make sense, that is not how the rules are written, and each airline does indeed have their own policies which must be individually approved by the FAA and the manufacturer is not involved.  The transmitters in a cell phone are what they are concerned about and why it should be put into airplane mode or turned off, depending on airline policy.

@pri Actually, equipment configurations and flight procedures for specific aircraft models vary from airline to airline, and the airline chooses who does maintenance and upgrades, both of which may be done by companies other than the original aircraft manufacturer. Thus the airlines themselves are the authority on this. There may also be non-technical reasons for prohibiting specific uses of personal devices, such as not wanting phone conversations to inconvenience other passengers, or having hard objects that could be damaged able to fly about the cabin at certain points in the flight.

The simplest answer to your question is, none that have not been specifically approved for use by the FAA. The FAA, in U.S.-controlled airspace, has pretty much all the power and responsibility for ensuring civilian air travel is safe, and they operate with an abundance of caution in all things, because that draconian code of rules and regulations is what keeps the agency itself from taking blame for a plane crash; if everyone followed all the rules and the plane still went down, it's the government's butt on the line.
So, the FAA has, for decades, maintained more or less a blanket ban on operation of devices with a transmit feature, even as modern airframes (and by "modern" I mean practically anything in the sky today) are well-shielded against radio interference, and consumer devices available for purchase and casual use do not transmit on frequencies anywhere near those used by aircraft for communication or navigation. The reason is simply that it is possible for a device to cause interference with aircraft systems, whether directly by pirating the frequency or indirectly through intermodulation or other artifacts of radio carrier wave dynamics, and it was simpler, easier and cheaper at the time for the FAA to ban them all than to evaluate every device or device type against every airframe in commercial aviation, verify empirically that it does not cause interference, and educate flight crews and the general public about which device types, makes and models specifically are or are not allowed.
The FAA has since changed tack; it has worked with the FCC beginning in the 90s to develop a set of joint rules for both device and aircraft systems design that, if complied with by the manufacturers, will guarantee the device will not cause interference. Devices meeting these criteria, including practically any smartphone or tablet on the market today, can be used during "non-critical" stages of flight (all usage of potentially-interfering devices is still restricted during takeoff, landing or at any time by instruction of the flight crew) while onboard an aircraft certified for use of such devices while airborne (meaning the airframe complies with rules for shielding/isolation of sensitive electronics; this certification, including any needed retrofits, can be done during scheduled maintenance on each airframe).

@PriyankGupta was heading in the right direction. Back when more people carried portable FM/AM receivers to listen to music, there was a problem with the receiver local oscillators causing interference. For example, If I wanted to listen to an FM station at 105.1 MHz, the local oscillator was 10.7 MHz above that frequencies so it was operating at 115.8 MHz. Leakage from the local oscillator could and did interfere with the aircraft receivers operating in that band. Of course, now days, almost no one uses portable FM broadcast receivers. However, the concept is the same for the various types of receivers and transmitters. The radios themselves may not interfere directly but one of the signals that gets mixed with another signal might. In modern commercial aircraft, they have multiple different systems so the likelihood of an airplane being severely compromised by a cell phone in the passenger section is very small but not zero. I always turn mine to airplane mode. I don't my family reading in the newspaper that the cause of a plane crash I was killed on was my cellphone being on.


text:
What is a Visual Climb Over Airport (VCOA) and how is it properly executed?
The takeoff minimums and (obstacle) departure procedures for the Asheville Regional Airport (KAVL) have special instructions due to the rising terrain in the vicinity of the airport. Instrument departures have special procedures to follow when departing IFR.
There are special procedures for visual climb which mention VCOA. There is no mention of VCOA in the Instrument Flying Handbook. Where is VCOA explained and what are the special considerations for pilots conducting this procedure?

It's defined in the pilot/controller glossary:

VISUAL CLIMB OVER AIRPORT (VCOA)− A departure option for an IFR
  aircraft, operating in visual meteorological conditions equal to or
  greater than the specified visibility and ceiling, to visually conduct
  climbing turns over the airport to the published “climb−to” altitude
  from which to proceed with the instrument portion of the departure.
  VCOA procedures are developed to avoid obstacles greater than 3
  statute miles from the departure end of the runway as an alternative
  to complying with climb gradients greater than 200 feet per nautical
  mile. These procedures are published in the ‘Take−Off Minimums and
  (Obstacle) Departure Procedures’ section of the Terminal Procedures
  Publications.

The AIM 5-2-8 says that pilots must request it:

Pilots are responsible to advise ATC as early as possible of the
  intent to fly the VCOA option prior to departure

And the ATC orders 4-3-2 say that ATC may not offer it:

Do not solicit use of the Visual Climb over Airport (VCOA) option.

The TERPS 14-4 has all the technical details and explains the purpose, which is to allow aircraft that can't maintain a 200fpnm climb to climb safely within a limited area over the airport:

VCOA is an alternative method for pilots to depart the airport where
  aircraft performance does not meet the specified climb gradient.

The departure designer creates a vertical cylinder (called a Visual Climb Area in the TERPS) of airspace over the airport that's safe to climb in, based on airport elevation, runway positions and a default airspeed of 250kt (although other airspeeds can be used). Even if the VCA dimensions aren't charted or stated in the DP, for an airport at 2000msl (KAVL is at 2162msl) the radius of the cylinder is at least 2nm at 90kts, or 2.8nm at 250kts, which seems to be plenty for a spiral climb (in the aircraft I fly, anyway). And the climb has to be in visual conditions, so terrain clearance shouldn't be an issue.
I don't know of any detailed guidance on how execute it, but "climbing turns over the airport" seems fairly clear. I've never done it myself, but I'd simply fly a continuous spiral climb after takeoff, up to the en route altitude mentioned in the procedures and go from there.


text:
Does full nose up trim provide approximately the elevator pressure for Vg?
I heard during an aviation presentation that full nose-up trim provides approximately the right amount of elevator pressure for Vg with the power at flight idle. The presenter also followed up with that this is a certification requirement. Is this the case? Is there anything in 14 CFR 23 or 25 about it?

This technique is commonly called the "minimum trim glide" - basically you smoothly trim the aircraft to full nose-up after the engine quits (at a rate which won't cause it to "balloon"), or alternatively you establish best glide speed manually and then trim to full nose-up to relive the pressure on the yoke so you can concentrate on other things.
I'm not sure if this is a "certification requirement" (I can't find anything about it in Part 23's discussion of trim requirements, the old CAR 3 regulations, or in AC 23-8C.
Empirically I can tell you that it's true for the loading configurations I've tried it in, on the Piper PA-28 and Cessna 172 aircraft I've flown. I have been lead to believe it is generally true for single-engine piston light aircraft: With no engine thrust full nose-up trim will produce something close to best glide speed. Before relying on it in any particular type of aircraft however I would perform a test at altitude by bringing the power to idle and verifying that you get something reasonably close to best glide speed.

Note that there is a potential pitfall of the minimum trim glide when practicing engine out maneuvers: Upon recovery it is possible to cause a trim stall. As power and airspeed increases in the recovery elevator/trim authority is also increased, and full nose-up trim is generally adequate to cause the aircraft to stall in this situation, therefore special care must be taken to prevent the aircraft from pitching up to an attitude which would cause a stall.


text:
Where does the final approach segment begin on an ILS approach?
Where does the final approach segment begin on an ILS approach? It may not be as simple as it sounds to answer. The reason I ask is because I've found some support for at least two answers.
One is that final begins when passing the glide slope intercept point a the last no lower than altitude for the approach. This is the point denoted by the lightning bolt arrow on government charts.

Another answer I've heard is that it begins when glide slope has be intercepted within the limitations of the glide slope and on an approach segment. For the example plate above, this would mean that if the glide slope were intercepted between SILKY and JAKOR the pilot would be considered to be past the final approach fix for all intents and purposes and might even configure the airplane for landing at that point rather than passing JAKOR at the published glide slope intercept.
I think there are valid arguments for both, but I'd apprecate more insight and references on the topic.

No arguments needed, it's very specifically defined. According to the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary under SEGMENTS OF AN INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE:

c. Final Approach− The segment between the final approach fix or point
  and the runway, airport, or missed approach point. (See ICAO term
  FINAL APPROACH SEGMENT.)

So it starts at the FAF, which is defined in the same document as:

FINAL APPROACH FIX− The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an
  airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final
  approach segment. It is designated on Government charts by the Maltese
  Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the lightning bolt
  symbol, designating the PFAF, for precision approaches; or when ATC directs a
  lower-than-published glideslope/path or vertical path intercept
  altitude, it is the resultant actual point of the glideslope/path or
  vertical path intercept.

In your example, that means the final approach segment starts at JAKOR. I may be wrong here, but your original thought might have been that the final approach starts when you're established on the glideslope, which could be outside JAKOR. That makes sense in a general way, but it isn't how the term is defined.

It's pretty easy to answer as  best I can determine: The Final Approach Segment begins at the Final Approach Fix. On FAA/NACO charts this is shown on the profile view with the Maltese cross:

The "lightning bolt arrow" (or as the FAA calls it, the "zigzag line") designates the precision approach glideslope intercept altitude
This is usually coincident with the final approach fix (and the specified altitude serves as the minimum crossing altitude for the final approach fix if the glideslope is inopertive or not in use), but it does not appear on non-precision approach charts, as shown above.
The final approach fix may also be marked in the plan view with the annotation (FAF).
You may have intercepted the glideslope before the FAF as you describe in your second scenario (particularly on a continuous-descent profile) or you may have done a dive-and-drive to that point because the glideslope is out of service before starting your final descent as in your first scenario, but for purposes of the approach segments the FAF marks the beginning of the final approach segment.

This actually came up in one of the Jeppesen "Chart Clinic" articles, which is a pretty good read: http://ww1.jeppesen.com/download/aopa/jul99aopa.pdf

It should be noted that this answer only covers the context of the non-precision approach.

The lightning bolt is the final approach fix for precision approaches and the Maltese cross is the final approach fix for non-precision approaches.

@JonathanWalters it's too simple lol

Those two symbols DEPICT the FAF, but only on particular charts.  Reread the question, it isn't asking how the FAF is depicted.

@JonAndis Read the accepted answer for clarification.

There's also something to be said for brevity.

@ryan Burnette The answer is exactly what I had said in my shorter more to the point response. Talk about brevity.

My 2014 AIM 5-4-5 Instrument Approach Charts says:

The ILS glide slope is intended to be intercepted at the published
  glide slope intercept altitude. This point marks the PFAF and is
  depicted by the “lightning bolt” symbol on U.S. Government charts.
  Intercepting the glide slope at this altitude marks the beginning of
  the final approach segment and ensures required obstacle clearance
  during descent from the glide slope intercept altitude to the lowest
  published decision altitude for the approach. Interception and
  tracking of the glide slope prior to the published glide slope
  interception altitude does not necessarily ensure that minimum,
  maximum, and/or mandatory altitudes published for any preceding fixes
  will be complied with during the descent. If the pilot chooses to
  track the glide slope prior to the glide slope interception altitude,
  they remain responsible for complying with published altitudes for any
  preceding stepdown fixes encountered during the subsequent descent.

So basically, the Final Approach Fix is when you intercept the glideslope at the lightning bolt or after the lightning bolt.  Outer marker beacons are usually (but not always) co-located with the conjunction of intercept altitude and glideslope.  If there are no marker beacons, you can expect to see an annotation stating RADAR REQUIRED.  As shown below, the PFAF for the ILS part of the approach is 3100'.  The Maltese cross would be the FAF if the approach is being flown as a localizer.

Final approach segment begins no sooner than the Final Approach Fix or Final Approach Point, however, it can begin later if you intercept the final approach course below the FAF/FAP published altitude, in which case the Final Approach Segment begins at the point of glide slope capture/intercept.

Take a look at the accepted answer, note that it cites a reference for its assertions. Your answer is appreciated, but would be more valuable if it included a basis for your statements.


text:
When should the missed approach procedure be executed?
When flying a straight-in precision or non-precision instrument approach, when should the missed approach procedure be executed?
Note that this is being asked in the context of FAA regulations, but ICAO answers are also welcomed. Understanding the overlap or differences is also appreciated.
Example 1
While flying the KLEX ILS 22 you find yourself 3.0 DME at 1900 MSL. You call missed and begin climbing. A moment later you are passing 2000 MSL and 2.8 DME. When do you begin your the missed approach procedure, specifically the left turn direct HYK for the hold?
Let's add another scenario to example 1, what if you were give alternate instructions of climb to 1000 then climbing left turn to 270, climb to 3100? Would that change anything about when to execute the turns in the missed approach procedure?
This example is a precision approach. It is also specifically a situation where the aircraft is going missed well before DA/DH. And it includes a second portion where alternate missed approach procedure has been provided by ATC.
Example 2
While flying the KLEX LOC 22 you pass the FAF BRIDL at 3200 MSL. You descend to 1520 and level off where you remain in IMC with no visual references. When do you begin the missed approach procedure?
This example is a non-precision approach. It assumes that the approach is continued at MDA and visual references will not be seen.

I read all the similar questions that I found in my initial search and found that while there are scenario-based questions that may lead to similar answers, the question has not been asked directly yet. A lot of of are trigger happy on the duplicate button. Please read the question before marking it a dupe.

You should start your turn at the MAP. A little after is also fine- you are protected for the distance required to climb from DA to 2000 feet from the MAP at 200 fpnm- approximately 3.1 nautical miles past the runway threshold, in this case.
In scenario 1, by going missed early you've left yourself no way to identify the MAP. Whoops! If you had timed the approach, you could have used the time to MAP table on the chart- though this is for the LOC MAP and about .7nm past the ILS MAP, it doesn't provide you any worse obstacle separation all of a sudden just because you were using the glideslope.
In scenario 2, the only way the MAP is identified is by distance from the FAF, and you need to time the approach, and not turn until after the time has elapsed.
Remember that in both cases you will need to do some calculations if you change your groundspeed while going missed early.

When you see the chart with Times and Speeds at the bottom of an approach, that means its a timed approach. The instrument needed is a clock, which is required in all IFR certified and legal aircraft.
The answer to your question in both scenarios is printed on the bottom of the approach plate next the the times and airspeeds. It reads FAF to MAP is 6.6NM. The missed approach point is 6.6NM from the FAF (near runway threshold). You are permitted to start the climb early when performing a missed approach but not the turn. The turn must wait until reaching MAP.
You should be hitting start on your clock at the FAF for timed approaches.
In scenario #1, you started climbing early, you won't be able to use DH/DA as the point where you begin the missed approach, so you can use either the TIME for your appropriate approach speed, or if equipped, GPS to identify 6.6NM from the FAF. Keep in mind that to use TIME you would need to be climbing at the approach speed you were using. So if your approach speed is 90 kts (and you're using 4:24 min), you would need to be climbing at 90 kts for the TIME in the chart to accurately reflect the location of the MAP.
In scenario #2, you're supposed to start the clock at the FAF, that is the only way to identify the MAP if you don't have GPS. However, if you have GPS, it will identify the MAP point for you, that is where you should start the climbing left-hand turn if you're already at or above 2000 ft.
In conclusion, the MAP for this approach is 6.6NM from the FAF. It can be identified by the DH/DA on the ILS, TIME, or GPS if so equipped.

Applicable to scenario #2, GPS is not authorized for defining the MAP on a timed approach. This is a common practice that is flatly wrong. Please see the Aero Chart Meeting - Instrument Procedures Group discussion on this topic. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-08/Hist_21-02-363_0.pdf

Example 1
When executing an early missed approach, the aircraft should continue on that segment of the approach until reaching the point where flying the slideslope would have reached DA/DH, or the MAP for that approach, before beginning any turns associated with the missed approach procedure. In this case the aircraft went missed at 1900 and needed to reach 2000 to begin a turn, so two conditions must be met before making the left turn direct HYK for the hold: above 2000, and having reached the MAP.
The same is true in Example 1 if alternate missed instructions were given. The aircraft should continue to the MAP before executing a turn.
This does not rule out the possibility that ATC gives vectors when you report going missed. The AIM also states that vectors should be followed if given by ATC when the missed is reported.
There is some ambiguity in terms of identifying the point where the aircraft would have reached DA/DH had the glideslope been followed. In the case of this approach, that point does not coincide with an identifiable DME or fix. This is a good reason to time all approaches. Navigation equipment vary from aircraft to aircraft, but generally TOGA or pressing a SUSP button will cause IFR certified GPS units to release the required inhibition of sequencing into a missed approach. The lateral track of the final approach segment that you're already on will continue to be tracked until reaching the point programmed into the GPS. If available, I believe this is the most accurate way to identify the MAP on a precision approach.
Example 2
Another reminder to time all approaches. Continue either until the time associated with your groundspeed has elapsed, or other means of IFR certified navigation are available as mentioned in my answer for Example 1. Continue on the approach until reaching the MAP before making any turns. Climb to the missed approach altitude is permitted at any point that a missed approach is executed.
References
AIM 5-4-21

Obstacle protection for missed approach is predicated on the missed approach being initiated at the decision altitude/decision height (DA/DH) or at the missed approach point and not lower than minimum descent altitude (MDA).

Instrument Flying Handbook 10-21

If the missed approach is initiated prior to reaching the MAP, unless otherwise cleared by ATC, continue to fly the IAP as specified on the approach chart. Fly to the MAP at or above the MDA or DA/DH before beginning a turn.

I agree that the point is to execute the missed at the MAP, but if it had to be that precise the procedure would have never allowed the MAP to be determined using a timer. The point is to execute the missed approach procedure from the vicinity of the center of the protected space designed for the approach. That's all I am trying to say.

Example 1: Per the missed approach procedure, you would start your left hand turn at 2000 ft.  As long as the aircraft is either on the localizer or localizer back course, this should provide obstacle clearance for the immediate climb out. At 2000 feet you can begin a turn toward the Lexington VOR/DME, climbing up to the Minimum Sector Altitude, which provides obstacle Clearance within a 25 mile radius of Bridl LOM.  As to a missed procedure specified by ATC, you would simply follow the instructions of ATC.
In Example 2, your MAP would be the threshold of runway 22, as specified on the plate.

Obstacle clearance is predicated on not turning before the MAP. If you reach 2000 feet before the MAP, you should hold off on the turn until reaching it.

Take a look at the approach plate. Turning toward the VOR/DME is perfectly acceptable once you reach 2000 feet.

Obstacle clearance on a turn in a missed approach is assuming that you don't turn until the MAP. The MAP in the ILS case is where the glideslope intersects DA. If you go missed very early you may reach 2000 feet before reaching the MAP and you are no longer guaranteed obstacle clearance if you turn that early.

LOOK AT THE PLATE.  Do you see anything obstacle there in the vicinity of the localizer path higher that 2000 ft?

No. In fact, you could fly direct to the VOR/DME from the MAP at DA without hitting any obstacles that appear on the planview. Why, then, do you suppose they require you to climb to 2000 before turning in the first place. In any case, ATC expects you to wait until the MAP to turn, and turning early may compromise separation with other aircraft.

Did you even read my answer?

Yes. You say to turn left as soon as you reach 2000 feet, even if you haven't reached the MAP yet, yes? The correct way to execute an early missed approach is to follow the lateral final approach course to the MAP before turning onto the missed approach course.

And what are you going to do if the reason for executing the missed approach is if you cannot identify the MAP due to an equipment failure?

I'd also point out most likely you will not fly the published missed as Lexington approach would probably give you radar vectors and an assigned altitude once you declared you were going missed here.  But that may not happen at an untowered field somewhere

I'll turn when the timer indicates I've reached the MAP. Or if the timer fails, I'll use whatever tools I have at my disposal to estimate it or ask ATC for help. For example, the 304 radial of the HYK radial passes through the runway, and turning when you cross that radial puts you squarely in the middle of the protected airspace for the missed approach.

Yeah, you know, that damned thing stopped working....come to think of it the whole approach has gone wrong.  The equipment isn't working, you tuned the wrong frequency, distractions from a passenger, now you're now tumbleweeds with a helmet fire raging out of control....

If my VOR receiver stops working, I'm not sure how you expect me to navigate direct HYK in the first place. :p Obviously I'm going to declare an emergency, climb, and ask for help at that point.

What's wrong with it?  Besides the fact you tuned it to the wrong frequency (and wouldn't you know that, you JUST CAUGHT IT!). vThe point being here is if you can make it to the MAP before going missed, fine.  But if you do go missed before that and fly the published missed procedure as specified, you are in no danger either.

Turning off the FAC before the MAP is not flying the published missed approach as specified. Full stop. While you may get away with it on some approaches, TERPS standards do not guarantee obstacle clearance, and you may compromise separation with other aircraft. At some airports, turning early may cause you to cross the final approach course or departure leg of another runway, and that's obviously not ideal.

As I stated above, in the examples, I give you do not have that choice available. If they list of published missed you fly it that way. If you have no means to identify the MAP, you may have no choice, but to follow the method that I state.


text:
How far can a plane squawking 7700 be heard and how quickly will the news spread?
This is just an idle question I have after watching Non-Stop (2014), but suppose a plane (let's assume a Boeing 767-400) is over the Atlantic and sets its transponder to indicate it's in an emergency. How far can this signal be detected?
Furthermore, how long would such an emergency take to become publically known? Would FlightAware know instantly or would it be secret until someone leaked it or the airline made an announcement?

Publically or publicly?

@MichaelHarvey The former is a common enough misspelling that dictionaries list it as alternative.  I'm not sure we need to nitpick spelling here...

Terrestrial radar systems only cover so much area. The latest Terminal radar system the FAA uses, the ASR-11, has a working range of 60 nautical miles. The Enroute ARSR-4 has a range of 250 nautical miles. The trade-off is between update time and range; a radar antenna that spins faster can provide quicker updates, but only in a smaller radius.
It is very possible that a trans-oceanic flight is beyond primary and secondary radar coverage, and for this reason separation in oceanic regions is effected by employing non-radar or procedural control procedures: basically the aircraft use long-range HF radios to report over certain fixes at certain altitudes at certain times, and ATC spaces aircraft longitudinally (in-trail) or laterally (on different tracks) so that aircraft at the same altitude are not too close.
So if an aircraft is outside of radar coverage, their 7700 secondary radar beacon code will not be picked up until they get close to land. Once they do, alarms will go off in the control room, the tag will flash on the scope, etc. This will not necessarily get passed to third-party sites, though it could be; I know, for example, that FlightAware gets a data feed from the FAA with information about the position and altitude of civilian flights (as long as they haven't submitted a request to block their tail number). Whether squawk code is part of this data, I don't know.
(As Dave points out, transponders that do not have ADS-B capability do not continually broadcast their set beacon code—they wait until they get a signal requesting that they do so. This signal could come from an ATC secondary radar antenna or a nearby TCAS-equipped aircraft. If neither are within range, the beacon code will not be broadcast in the first place.)
But also: FlightAware and other websites are fed by ADS-B ground stations which pick up on the transponder signals sent by aircraft (and ATC systems are using their own standalone ADS-B sites not associated with primary radar sites). These sites are, of course, also not sitting in the middle of the ocean. But the signals are not encrypted; there is nothing to prevent someone from writing a script to send a tweet every time an emergency code is detected, and indeed people have done just that.
The next big thing is space-based ADS-B, where the ADS-B receiver station is located on a satellite. This would allow quasi-radar control to be effected in oceanic regions. Of course this doesn't help the amateur planespotter unless they can get a Raspberry Pi sent to space.

Great answer! Regarding your last sentence: space-based ADS-B will also be available to FlightAware and Flightradar24 since both sites entered agreements with the satellite operating companies according to Wikipedia.

Yeah, I'll make this the accepted answer in a day or two unless a better answer comes along.

There are two scenarios that will have different outcomes:
Mode S:
A mode S transponder only transmits when it is pinged with an SSR signal. If the transponder is set to 7700 and the aircraft is not under radar coverage, no one will receive the signal as nothing will get broadcast. So in short only aircraft in radar range are capable of being "heard" after squawking 7700
ADS-B out:
A lot of places are moving over to ADS-B which constantly broadcasts information about the aircraft including the transponder code which anyone in range (including other aircraft) with an ADS-B receiver can pick up.

TCAS also "pings" the transponder and elicits a broadcasted response, yes? AFAIK the TCAS-ping and the SSR-ping are the same ping. So if a TCAS-equipped craft is within range of other TCAS-equipped craft the beacon code will also be broadcast periodically, even in the absence of ADS-B.


text:
Why most of the supersonic or fighter aircraft use all-moving control surfaces?
What are the advantages of using all-moving control surfaces? can someone give explanations based on aerodynamics?

Well treated here: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/5003/what-control-issues-did-the-x-1-have-to-overcome-to-achieve-supersonic-flight and some info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator

The biggest two reasons to have a stabilator (the most common all-moving control surface) are stability at supersonic speeds and increased maneuverability.
As an airfoil approaches its critical Mach number, the diverted flow moving past the wing's leading edge, because it has to move faster than the wing itself to follow the contour, starts to exceed Mach 1 and then decelerates below it, causing a transsonic shockwave to form behind the wing's leading edge. This shockwave causes boundary separation of the airflow at the trailing edge of the wing, where traditional elevator surfaces are placed. This reduces the wing's lift and also the effectiveness of elevator surfaces, a phenomenon known as "Mach tuck". By instead moving the entire control surface, this problem is avoided as the entire airfoil, regardless of the quality of the flow of air over any point of it, is used to direct airflow and thus rate the aircraft's nose.
Second, and more intuitively, the larger the elevator surface, the more air it redirects and thus the more force it places on the tail section, in turn allowing the pilot to pitch the aircraft at higher rates. The ideal endpoint of this line of thought is that the entire stabilizer also becomes the elevator surface; a "stabilator".
Both of these considerations are critical to the design of fighter jets, which as of the fourth generation were almost all capable of Mach 1 (and a few could exceed Mach 2), and which also have to be highly maneuverable even as the moment of inertia of the airframe in the pitch plane increases (an unavoidable side effect of wrapping an airframe around two high-performance jet engines traversing the length of the fuselage).

I always thought it was the kink in the airfoil contour (in case of a elevator deflected upwards) that caused a lot of problems in terms of shock waves and that this was a reason to install all movable airfoils. Am I completely mistaken, or is this another reason for all-movable elevators?

In fully supersonic flight that may well be the case; however, transsonic airflow causes the problems I mentioned long before the aircraft itself gets to Mach 1, and these problems are often encountered on aircraft with sufficient power to approach Mach 1 but which aren't designed for transsonic flight.

But I guess a kink can also give problems before mach 1, as the increased local curvature will greatly increase the pressure, I don't think you need supersonic flow for this

Many thanks for your great explanations KeithS! Apart from the reasons given by you (shockwaves, Mach tuck and more force), I have always wondered is there any aerodynamic theories or calculations than can be proved or related to those considerations? Does larger surface area on all moving control surfaces really provide more moment as compared to conventional tailplane (fixed+elevator)? Why most of commercial aircraft not using all moving control surfaces?

@syahmiamirhamzah - All-moving control surfaces increase the maximum theoretical force the tailplane can provide because the force on the surface is a function of the relative angle of the airflow and the area that airflow impacts. The bigger the surface, the more force the tailplane can produce. In practice, you may not see a difference because there are other loading limits inherent in the airframe design. This is why commercial airliners don't use them; the forces produced exceed what the aircraft is required to do (and thus is built to withstand). A 747 doesn't need to execute a 9G turn.


text:
What are the differences between the different types of TCAS?
In discussions about TCAS I've overheard mentioning different levels such as "TCAS 1" or "TCAS 3." What are the different types of TCAS and how are they different?

The Traffic Collision Avoidance System TCAS (also called ACAS - Automated Collision Avoidance System) is used in aircraft to alert the pilots about possible collision.
The basic system in all the levels are the same. As per the FAA what differs is the type of warning issued to the pilots. As per FAA:

TCAS is a family of airborne devices that function independently of the ground-based air traffic control (ATC) system, and provide collision avoidance protection for a broad spectrum of aircraft types.  All TCAS
  systems provide some degree of collision threat alerting, and a traffic display.  TCAS I and II differ primarily by their alerting capability.

TCAS I issues 'traffic advisories' (TAs) to the pilot, alerting him to the impending collision.
TCAS II provides the pilots with resolution advisories(RAs) in addition to TAs. Basically the TCAS provides the pilot with the required escape manevores in th vertical direction.
TCAS III and IV were supposed to provide horizontal resolution RAs, but development was stopped due to limitations of the available TCAS antennae.
TCAS is expected to be replaced by automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS–B)


text:
Which FAA certifications may be used as a name suffix and how are they properly used?
You often see pilots using some of their certifications as name suffixes. eg. John Smith, CFI or John Smith, ATP CFII. The Wikipedia page for ATP mentions that the ATP may be used as a name suffix but provides no reference. Does anyone know which certifications may be used as a name suffix and how they are properly used?

I don't know that there's any kind of official rule about what name suffixes a person may use. I suppose as long as he is not being subversive then there's no problem.
These would fall under the "professional" suffix category and like many suffixes may only be recognized by people familiar with a certain industry. For example, CISSP or CISM may only be recognized, ie. they know what it stands for, by those who work in information technology and other related fields.
If it isn't a professional FAA certification, then obviously, it shouldn't be used as a suffix.  I have seen the following used as a suffix or listed as a desirable qualification:

CFI, CFI-I, CFI-G and MEI
AGI, BGI, IGI
ATP, ATP-R
DPE

There is, however, a point that shouldn't be missed;  you won't see pilots going around signing documents and adding suffixes at the end of their name like a doctor, but it is usually a way of conveying to an audience what that person's qualification or source of legitimacy is such as on a business card, advertisement, or flight school staff page.
A commercial pilot would not use that qualification like a suffix because it is not commonly abbreviated, and without any other qualification that would imply that a commercial certificate is held, they are extremely limited on what they can actually get paid to fly for. Therefore, the advertising aspect is irrelevant because there is virtually no public target audience.
The lack of a public advertising target also goes for certificated flight dispatchers.

I have to agree, that unless I'm trying to convey my qualifications quickly to a targeted audience, signing my name "Ron Beyer PPL" or "Pilot Ron Beyer" will probably do nothing more than label me as arrogant or show-off-ish.

DPEs (Designated Pilot Examiners), along with Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs), Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs), and designated Aviation Medical Examiners (AMEs) are technically "FAA Designees", so I'm not sure if that would be handled under the "professional certification" style or not (probably a question for The Workplace) - the DERs I've worked with usually have "FAA DER (whatever field)" on their cards as either a title or notation but there's probably no hard-and-fast rule here.

@RonBeyer I completely agree. -Ryan Burnette, CPL CFI MEI AGI IGI ;)


text:
Why is there a disparity in the conversion from runway visual range (RVR) to statute miles?
TBL 5-4-1 in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) provides conversion from RVR to visibility in statute miles. I've reversed the first two columns from the AIM table to allow for comparison of the listed RVR to the actual distance in resulting from multiplying 5,280 by these fractions.
Why would there would be a difference of more than 100 feet? I understand that the RVR equipment may not be accurate enough to measure a value like 1,320, but why use 1,600 rather than 1,300 or 1,400?
Furthermore, the lack of RVR actually allows flight in lower true RVR for the 1600/quarter mile level. Let's say that the RVR was 1500 on an approach with mins of 1600. If suddenly the RVR equipment failed and a report 1/4 statute miles was substituted the approach would again be available. Usually the failure of a more precise piece of equipment substituted for a less precise calls for added margin of safety. Why the opposite approach here?

SM          RVR          ACTUAL
-           -            -
1/4         1600         1320
1/2         2400         2640
5/8         3200         3300
3/4         4000         3960
7/8         4500         4620
1           5000         5280
1 1/4       6000         6600

Some light on the mysteries of conversion...
Types of devices used for RVR measurement
A RVR device is composed of a light source and a light sensor. The light source is an incandescent lamp in a transmissometer, the oldest device, while in the more modern scatter-effect device it is an infrared LED. The sensor can determine RVR in a certain range, with the accuracy varying in the range:

Incandescence: Down to 600 ft by 200 ft increments within 600-3,000 ft, 500 ft above 3,000 ft.

Infrared: Down to 0 ft by 100 ft increments below 800 ft, 200 ft within 800-3,000 ft, and 500 ft above 3,000 ft.

RVR unit conversion
To make RVR ft-m conversion easy, rough equivalences are established:

100 ft = 25 m
200 ft = 50 m
500 ft = 150 m

Visibility unit conversion
Countries can also report visibility, which is different from RVR, in statute miles or nautical miles. Again rough equivalences are in place:

1/4 SM = 400 m
1 SM = 1,600 m.
1 NM = 11/4 SM.
1 NM = 2,000 m.

Substituting visibility to RVR
With all these approximate conversion factors defined, we can build a table for visibility by increments of 1/4 SM or 400 m (on the right hand of the table below), and use meter values, the common unit, to establish approximated RVR-visibility pairs.

(Source: Jeppesen)
Visibility, contrary to RVR, is not an exact measure. It's based on eye performance and available distinctive features of the surrounding environment. Moreover, visibility isn't generally evaluated for the same volume of atmosphere than RVR.
Sources:

FAA Order 6560.10C, Runway Visual Range.

Jeppesen Explanation of Common Airport Operating Minimum Specifications

Technically, one mile is 1609.3 meters.  Like in American (non-professional) track and field, they seem to be making a "good enough" approximation here that 1600 m = 1 mile, since the difference is 0.5%.

@ymb1: Thanks for the update, this is a good one (you're correct there was no notification). The conversion for 100/200/500 ft is the one used for the first rows of the table. A new link for the table, the one in the answer is dead.

Because visibility and RVR is not the same thing.

Visibility for aeronautical purposes is the greater of:
a) the greatest safe distance at which a black object of suitable dimensions, situated near the ground, can be seen and recognised when observed against a bright background;
b) the greatest distance at which lights in the vicinity of 1000 candelas can be seen and identified against an unlit black background.
Runway visual range (RVR) is the range over which the pilot of an aircraft on the centre line of a runway can see the runway surface markings or the light delineating the runway or identifying its centre line. (ICAO Annex 3)

(From Skybrary)

I get that they aren't the same thing, but why aren't the ratios of the RVR and visibility somewhat constant across the conversions int he table? Something doesn't smell right about that.

@RyanBurnette: That's because RVR is measured by increments (25m/100ft, then 50m/200ft, etc) then converted into fractions of SM. See this more complete table from Jeppesen.

@mins What a mess! That sheds a lot of light onto it though. It would be a pretty solid answer if you'd embed that chart.

@mins, in the UK itself, the common sense is already well on its way to overcome the archaisms. They now use SI units for most purposes, distances and speed limits on road signs being the main exception. The USA are the only place holding on to it.

@JanHudec: "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"


text:
Has the Beechcraft company considered building a single-engine turboprop?
I was passing a stack of magazines at a friend's office and I could have sworn I saw a cover article about a single-engine King Air. I went looking for that article and haven't been able to find it, but it got me thinking. Has the Beechcraft company ever released any information in any form that might indicate that they've considered building a single-engine turboprop?
I'm curious more on airplanes comparable to the King Air. I believe I remember reading that they played with the idea of a turboprop Bonanza, not to be confused with any STC modifications that make a Bonanza or Baron a turboprop.
I also realize that now Textron owns Cessna and Beechcraft, so if you consider the question in the larger frame of reference it looks a bit different as well.

Yes.
https://www.google.com/search?q=single+engine+king+air
Top result:
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/beechcraft-reborn

Perhaps the most intriguing product floated by HBC at its NBAA press conference was a single-engine turboprop. The company says the airplane has no public name or designation but will “absolutely,” said Holcombe, be “called a King Air.” That name, of course, has never been bestowed upon a single-engine airplane before.
This King Air, however, will be no scaled-back PT-6 single. Like the remarkably roomy and powerful Pilatus PC-12, the Beechcraft single will be big. Its fuselage will be — get this — based on that of the Premier 1A, which, HBC claims, has the best cabin of any bizjet in its class. It will certainly be huge for a single. In addition to the voluminous cabin, the single would feature a large side loading door, room for eight to 11 occupants and industry-leading pressurization. The composite fuselage allows for efficient pressurization. HBC says it will build the fuselage in the same way it builds the Premier 1A today, using state-of-the-art winding technology for extremely light and strong composite structures.

It's been in the works for a few years now - supposedly - though it's not totally clear whether it will be a Cessna product or a Beechcraft product.

The Textron Denali will be a Cessna product.